 |
 |
TPLU COMMENTARY
By D. Rawlinson/TPLU
HOW, one might ask, does all of the above apply to each other??? In normal situations, they would not interact or-- make sense when discussed together BUT!! When a TDC inmate JUMPS OFF taking TDC to court—all of the above mixed together have a sort of RELAVENCE, at least to my reasoning they do. My explanation is: I-- like I am sure many, may have a working understanding of the game of golf, but I reveal here—I have never once played the game. I DO believe however that I could play through 18 holes of golf. I have no concept of how long it would take or how many times I might need to hit the ball, but I am willing to play 18 if I thought I needed to. Someone like Tiger Woods could play a round and breeze though in good time with a great score and most likely would not break/bend any rules and his game would certainly not get canceled because of a Time issue.
When a TDC inmate DECIDES to take an issue to court and that inmate has little or no or even a GOOD working knowledge of the Law, it is sort of like a novice taking on the 18 holes of golf. The lawyers for TDC/court clerks etc. are ON the playing level of say—a Tiger Woods OR they would NOT be where they are to start with. SOOOooo! Folks, you face about as good a chance of winning a court action against TDC as beating Tiger Woods in a heads up game of golf. How many inmates believe they CAN go head to head with TDC/the Office of the A G of Texas in court? Thousands and Thousands!! How many win? Very, very few.
I had a very expensive class of lawyer tell me one time, that practicing law was kin to doing brain surgery! I was paying him a fee to be 2nd. chair in a case while I did the issue Pro Se. I chuckled to myself that I had once sewn up a bad cut of my own with stitches and I thought I could do the brain surgery, BUT!! I NOW believe the lawyer, at least to a degree. Reason: The LAW has two components—1. Substantive Law: That is the WAY one reads it and interprets it to themselves HOW it should work 2. Procedural Law: That is HOW it really works in court in the hands of trained lawyers/court clerks and judges.
This is where the Brain surgery skills/concepts come into play. Each court has its own set of Rules and Practices and a person intending to practice law/bring an action in any court REALLY needs to acquire a copy of the court’s Rules and Practices. You can be sure any/all Free World lawyers understand the NEED for doing so. Most all courts now have those posted to court Web sites and copies of them are not free for hand out or mailing. Few TDC inmates have computers in their cells to call these up on and study. A few have outside support that could do it but most do not even realize the REAL need to do so.
As the case/court procedure entry process begins, the Brain surgery skills come into play, in that each word in a filing, each action by either party MEANS some thing to some one. Action—Immediate or delayed on purpose HAS a reason by the TDC/A G lawyers, etc. They, either themselves or those on hand to counsel them, HAVE years and YEARS of practice under the belt that has taught them many various tactics when dealing with cases. The office of TDC legal/A G have in depth files to learn from as HOW to proceed against any given inmate legal action. The MAJORITY of this data is designed to lead the inmate action to DISMISSAL. THIS is an actual goal—to get the issue DIMISSED by the court not beat it.
Like in the game of GOLF, the legal playing field (courts) have traps/pits/par variations/course regulations etc. that ONLY old hands on the course have a Snow Balls chance in HELL of being accomplished at. As the golf club bag has so many clubs in it to be used at so many different ball strikes, in so many different angles and so many different degrees of strength—court procedures have very fine tuned nuances that old hand lawyers can just FEEL. On top of all of that, they usually KNOW all the court clerks, may even Have dated them or been married to them or know a lawyer friend that has. Additionally, if the lawyer(s) are of the same political party as the judge; he/they could have had lunch with him/her that previous week. If any one does NOT realize that THAT gives the lawyer the edges over an inmate that must do all his/her court interaction through the TDC mailrooms—WELL??
While I am on the mail rooms. Back in the late 90’s, I advanced a $1.6 Million action against TDC in which I had copies of maybe 12 TDC inner office communications (got them by accident from the E P A through an F O A action) the file had—DO NOT COPY on it but the print was weak and an E P A secretary just over looked it and SENT me a copy of that file, as well as the other data I requested. In effect, I had TDC’s own paper work admitting wrong in a chemical burn to an inmate. HOW could I lose? TDC hid the unit safety officer for over 2 years from the court. Telling the court, it could not find him? He was at a unit 50 miles from the court, I found him. The court wrote me back that the case was Ripe for Disposition. It sent court documents to the inmate I was assisting, something that had a 10 day limit to respond to. The mail room held up delivery to the inmate and his mail response was held (all the legal 72 hr.’s in/72 hr.’s out) up and with the time he needed to get a lay- in to get to the law library to write his response he was ONE day late getting the response to the court and the action WAS DISMISSED. No matter that we had TDC’s own documents that recorded the mis-deed. One even had a hand written notation: in effect.—Do not attempt to tell Rawlinson nothing or it will just aggravate the situation. The memo suggested that other TDC Dept. heads inter into the disinformation process.
TDC practiced (in my opinion) a VERY crude but intricate form of legal brain surgery.
The TPLU is in very serious study of the elements of TDC’s/A G’s crude but efficient practices that set up water holes/sand traps/woods/course little known rules/road blocks/walls etc. that are in place and have been for HUNDREDS of years to cause/insure that TDC inmate court actions are/will BE doomed to failure as soon as they sign a step I grievance to get things started.
EXHAUSTION of Administrative Remedies is a MUST! To not Do so it to put into place a means for any court to DISMISS. DOES not count that the inmate is right (Substantive Law—the way it reads, the WAY we believe the court/law WILL work. Procedural Law destines inmate action to FAILURE.
The TPLU hopes all potential inmate litigants take a few to read and consider what we have put out here. We are actively LOOKING for good inmate Jail House Lawyers interested in reducing to printed format, procedures for study to be used in the future by hopeful inmate litigants.
************
Preliminary thoughts on how to best address the set blocks to success by TDC inmates in court under taking:
WE understand that the courts will no longer grant/rule on certification of a Class Action simply from the submission of such a requests by a group of inmates. RUIZ was granted Class and given its name (we are led to believe) because David R.’s page was first in the group of Plaintiff files and it is said his was front/back of a Big Chief note tablet paper. Maybe like the thing of How sack lunches came to be called: Johnnies, some one can lay this rumor to rest. Robert Chase is doing a Thesis on the RUIZ era and I believe he set out to clarify this issue/question but input is invited.
Today—the courts will require that the Plaintiff’s bring exhibits firsts to the court from expert witnesses, supply prelim. Depositions, Interrogatories etc., all of which will cost in BOTH time and money. Should the court find after that, that the issue qualifies for Class, those expenditures are refunded. Who can afford to do this?
Is there a TDC Jailhouse Lawyer willing to write a Concise Brief on this? If so, please contact me. I DO need SASE’s. I do have a contact to the U. T. School of Law/Class Actions Sect. that I am sure might assist. Such a BRIEF is BADLY needed.
The TPLU believes that any serious court undertaking needs for the inmate to first: 1. Put in several months of study out lining a proposed advance. One needs to know what future costs, if any will come up and if they can be afforded. One needs to effect a limited POA to some one on the outside IN ORDER to have some one the court will acknowledge to give updates to, take signatures from and work time Extensions with on behalf of the inmate to KEEP the mailrooms from performing blocking moves. One MUST have outside support that can COMMITTEE to staying the course.
All must keep in mind that service fees by Marshall’s etc. are EXPENSIVE. Sure one can file I F P but the Marshall’s office will not do as well in those cases. A Marshall can go to the Main TDC Huntsville office to serve papers on the current Director and the secretary says—Well, he/she is out for the day. Not sure when he/she will return. The Marshall’s will not look/search through the building, they return to their court. How many times will they re-try? Not many. This applies not only to a Director but others that you may need served.
We NEED to LEARN folks by writing briefs, doing court tries and when/if we fail—log the corrections to computer files and go at it again and again until NO court can find fault with our procedure. Those that know the ropes are requested to reduce their knowledge to disk files.
Through the Tenants of Concerted Effort and Mutual Aid, the inmates of TDC CAN take TDC etc. to court on a least a MORE level playing field.
The TPLU will assist those interested in working on/solving these undertakings but we cannot afford all the postage and cannot take court cases on individual bases. We are offering to assist through our office resources, the creation of Self-Help learning briefs.
IN SOLIDARITY,
T.P.L.U.
18 Holes of Golf/Practicing the Law/Brain Surgery
DWIGHT RAWLINSON
National Secretary
C/O: Dwight Rawlinson
2121 So. 4th
Waco, Texas 76706
Copyright © 2007-2009 TPNS
